Talk:Learning and Evaluation/Evaluation reports/2013

Copy-edit comments

I've arrived because my watchlist says it's been listed for translation. Please check my edits, which are non-substantive. In a few places I was mindful of the difficulties translators might encounter (e.g. "most of the time" -> "typically"). In general, I think this is slightly on the long and elaborate side of optimal, and in one place introduces theory without explaining it (it may be better to introduce it later, where detailed explanation might be more appropriate).

1. What about adding the italicised insertion here: "the incredible work that international Wikimedia organizations and individual volunteers are doing around the world to increase the quality and amount of content on Wikimedia projects".
2. I really don't think the quotemarks add anything to the first three definitional titles. I've also never understood how to deal with those translation markups, which now need to be adjusted accordingly. (Have we finally got a how-to-do-it for those markups? I asked for one a year ago on Meta.)
3. I've removed the short questions at the start of the "three important definitions: they repeat the title and the first sentence.
4. I was a bit fuzzy about this, and I think a lot of WIkimedians will wonder what it means—the reference is to capacity building: "By doing this successfully, the community can have the capacity to comfortably evaluate without fear or worry of the processes involved." I'm struggling to replace it. Perhaps it could be simply dropped in favour of the previous sentence alone?

I'd like to return to get further than the opening few paras.

I noticed a red "script error" at the bottom, which was there before I touched the page.

Tony (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Tony (talk). The changes look great. To answer your questions:

1. I think they look fine without the quote marks. I believe the only solution is to mark the page for translation again.
2. Thanks for that - it is more readable

1. I made some minor changes to that line; not sure if it helps. While we want to provide tools and resources for evaluation, we are really looking to make it easier and help the community feel comfortable with going through the process...

I'm not sure about that script error at the bottom - I can check with a coworker. Thanks again for the edits!! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward, coming back soon for the rest. Trivial question: Since "data" is going to be used a lot by WMF learning and evaluation, could you ask Jaime whether she prefers plural or singular? Data are / Data is; I don't care. I usually ask my private clients first time it occurs, since there's often inconsistency within a text. Tony (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Copy-edit comments 2

Current evaluation initiative:

Please revert anything you don't like.

• I changed "our team" to "the team" ... somehow less homely or self-focused. For some reason, "our" ("our goal") is fine in some places.
• "Our team's goal is to provide program leaders with the skills and tools to evaluate and design their programs. By doing this successfully, the community would be able to comfortably evaluate, without fear or worry of the processes involved." ->

  "Our goal is to provide program leaders with the skills and tools to evaluate and design their programs. Doing this successfully will enable the community to evaluate more easily and effectively." Is that OK?

• "engage, inspire and empower program leaders" ... I think that's laying it on a bit thick. See if you're ok with my trim-back. Let's also be concerned with how the text translates into other languages/cultures: trim, friendly, and straight to the point is safe, and I'm become just slightly aware of a WMF culture of "selling". What we want is cool, calm, friendly expertise and engagement—not "trying too hard" in this way.
• "In August 2013 we sent out the request for more than 100 program leaders around the world to take a survey."—More relevant to the credibility of the results is how high your take-up rate was—that is, the sample size. Suggest you say that, or just say how many actually did the survey.
• A few inline queries.

Tony (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)